+1
Twenty five years ago I would have described myself as a huge supporter of law enforcement. Today I avoid any and all contact with them and eye them with suspicion. I’ve never been arrested. My change in point of view is, I believe, an intelligent response to what I’ve seen/heard/read.
Nope, sorry, but though what he did was within the letter of the law, he’s still an idiot, and I still can’t feel any sympathy for him.
As to being filmed in a public place, yes we are oftenfilmed in the developed world, usually by cctv., not by complete strangers who make a point of filming you for no apparent reason.
And as a matter of curiousity, has he given his reason for his rather strange actions yet ?
As to what proof there is as to him lieing to the officer, you actually HEAR him on the video telling a lie in answer to the officers question. As to the, “Enraged officer, completely out of control going on a rampage of violence”…
I’ve never heard of someone in that mental state still calling the other person involved Sir !
And I’m still interested in the aftermath of whether or not he gets a pay out, courtesy of the local taxpayer, plus interview fees from the media etc.etc.
And now I’m off to stand outside of a neighbours house for several hours staring at his window, which of course is completely legal, and is my right.
I don’t expect him to confront me or anything because he’s not a criminal either.
Sorry, the question was whether the cop violated the law, not his victim. Everyone seems to agree the victim did not, though there is disagreement about how much of an idiot and/or jerk he might be.
In the USA at least, he doesn’t have to give a reason. Citizens here are able to do anything legal that they like, and the cops don’t get to object. If it is legal to tape a cop, then the cop doesn’t get to order him to stop.
Regards,
Shodan
Right, so next time a big guy with a stick and gun starts whalin’ on you, you’re going to be nice and quiet. Right. :rolleyes:
I’m right here with you on this. I don’t want to interact with cops, ever. Not only do I feel that they are not benevolent, I find that they were actively incapable of actually providing help on the rare occasions when I’ve called on them, or have treated me like I’m the problem for having an issue with someone else’s lawbreaking. Who needs that?
The reason why we can be filmed by cctv in public places is that there is no expectation of privacy. If everything that you’re doing can be seen by others, then everything that you’re doing can be recorded.
And there was an apparent reason, a readily apparent reason. There had been criminal activity on the man’s street, at his neighbor’s home, now there were police all around doing various things. It was an unusual and troubling situation in his community and he was recording it, just as I recorded a couple of years ago when a house across the street caught fire, and there was a dramatic scene of firefighters rescuing the family dog, and I recorded last winter on the day when a city garbage truck was left sitting outside my house, engine on and idling wasting fuel & spewing diesel fumes into the air, with no crew or driver anywhere in sight, for more than an hour.
People are completely entitled to stand on their property and videotape anything (and anyone) on the street right in front of them. They’re entitled to do so on a public right of way as well.
Police, on the other hand, need a reason to order you to cease legally protected behavior, like watching them, and by extension, recording them. The convenient catch-all of “interfering with police business” doesn’t work when the police have to come to you because you’re not anywhere near them or what they’re doing.
Not an attempt to resurrect this thread, but I thought that some people might like an update: Officer Derek Colling fired (after 8 month investigation).
I’m disappointed that this guy got paid for 8 fucking months before he was finally let go, but I’m glad he was let go. I’m also disappointed that thus far, no criminal charges have been filed against former-Officer Colling.
Mitchell Crooks (well, his attorney, actually) filed a federal civil rights lawsuit last month seeking more than US$75k, so that’s going on as well.
Anyway, just wanted to provide an update on the subject of this thread, since I saw the article in the 'paper today.
Congratulations to him on actually getting a cop punished for breaking the law, which is nearly impossible. Of course, the cop got an eight-month paid vacation first, which is de rigeur, but it’s something. And, Mr. Crooks will now be targeted for further harassment and violence by the rest of the police force for the rest of his life. But it’s one step in the right direction.
Hasnt this been threaded previously?
The man was a repeat anti social minor criminal, nothing more to add.
Ahhh, you agree the cop’s behavior was criminal. Cool.
When someone beats up the biggest kid in school, do people start targeting that guy? Quite the opposite.
Funny. You had a lot of jabbering to do early in the thread.
How does this work then? Can you not identify a PSNI officer by their uniform anyway?
That’s ridiculous, what is the justification for having that law?
You have named it – the law is based on ridiculousness.
Is this claim based on this filming-and-beating incident? Or is there more to the unfortunately-named Mr. Crooks’s criminal history?
He means identify them off-duty from a picture taken of them on-duty.
The 1st Circuit though ruled last year the person who is vdeotaping has a 1st AM right to do so. This I believe makes this the first Federal Appeals Court to rule such, although I did not read the whole opinion to find out if any sister circuit is in accord.
I have always been of the legal contention filming and audio taping police was a right protected by the 1st AM. It is about time a High level court said so.
So Hyde now is effectively overruled.
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/glik_v_cunniffe/appeals_court_ruling.pdf
Ah ok that makes more sense. I doubt, however, it’s a secret who is and isn’t a member of the PSNI though anyway is it?
As a non-biased against cops person who is related to and friends with several I should say that being honest with cops is the worst thing you should teach your children.
You should be polite and as silent as possible, within reason.
As for this taping, I would say it would be well within the rights of the camera operator to film a police officer, freedom of the press is not an occupation related freedom, it is the freedom to publish information, and the courts have ruled that part of that exercise is the collection of information to publish.
The vast majority of police are good people and trying to do the right thing but I would argue that documenting and publishing the rare abuses of power is the primary reason the freedom of the press was amended to the constitution.